comparative analysis of regular and irregular buildings ... · by sap2000 and etabs are roughly...
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 6
Comparative Analysis of Regular and Irregular
Buildings With and Without Shear Wall Suruchi Mishra
1*, Rizwanullah
2
1, 2 Former M.Tech Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Al-Falah School of Engineering & Technology, Haryana, 136118
Abstract: Modern residential structure are going higher and
higher these days. The impact of lateral loads in the form of
wind/Earthquakes affects the performance of these structures
dramatically. It is often a common practice among structural
engineers to use shear walls in place of columns. In the present
study the comparison of seismic behaviour of G+10 storey
buildings having horizontal irregularity with the regular
building of similar properties with and without shear wall by
using ETAB software was done. For this purpose four multi-
storey building plans are considered that are symmetric plan, L
shape, T shape, and + shape. For the comparison, parameters
taken are lateral displacement, storey drift and model period. All
the four buildings were analyzed for zone IV. Modal Period with
different configuration of building, Storey Displacement of
structure with different configuration of building, Storey Drift
with different configuration of building were studied and their
comparison was done.
Keywords: Regular and Irregular Buildings, Shear wall, ETABs
Software, Seismic and wind forces, Storey Displacement, Storey
drift and Modal period.
I. INTRODUCTION
all towers and buildings have fascinated mankind from
the beginning of civilization, their construction being
initially for defense and subsequently for ecclesiastical
purposes. The growth in modern tall building construction,
however, which began in the 1880s, has been largely for
commercial and residential purposes. Tall commercial
buildings are primarily a response to the demand by business
activities to be as close to each other and to the city centre, as
possible, thereby putting intense pressure on the available land
space. Also, because they form distinctive landmarks, tall
commercial buildings are frequently developed in city centers
as prestige symbols for corporate organizations. The rapid
growth of the urban population and the consequent pressure
on limited space has considerably influenced city residential
development.
Shear walls are structural systems which provide stability to
structures from lateral loads like (due to its self-weight and
other living / moving loads) but they are also designed for
lateral loads of earthquakes / wind. The shear wall structural
systems are more stable because their supporting area (total
cross sectional area of all shear walls) with reference to total
plans area of building is comparatively more unlike in the
case of RCC framed structures. Shear walls are quick in
construction, as the method adopted to construct is concreting
the members using formwork.
Irregularity is different types such as vertical irregularity and
horizontal irregularity. Vertical irregularity refers to sudden
change of strength, stiffness, geometry and mass result in
irregular distribution of forces and /or deformation over the
height of building. Horizontal Irregularity refers to
asymmetrical plan shapes (e.g.: L-, T-, U-, F-,+-) or
discontinuities in the horizontal resisting elements (
diaphragms) such as cut-outs, large openings, re-entrant
corners and other abrupt changes resulting in torsion,
diaphragm deformations and stress concentration. Shear walls
are not only designed to resist gravity / vertical loads (due to
its self-weight and other living / moving loads) but also
designed for lateral loads of earthquakes / wind. The walls are
structurally integrated with roofs / floors (diaphragms) and
other lateral walls running across at right angles, thereby
giving the three dimensional stability for the building
structures.
ETABS is a sophisticated, yet easy to use, special purpose
analysis and design program developed specifically for
building systems. ETABS features an intuitive and powerful
graphical interface coupled with unmatched modelling,
analytical, design, and detailing procedures, all integrated
using a common database. Although quick and easy for
simple structures, ETABS can also handle the largest and
most complex building models, including a wide range of
nonlinear behaviours, making it the tool of choice for
structural engineers in the building industry. Most buildings
are of straightforward geometry with horizontal beams and
vertical columns. Many of the floor levels in buildings are
similar. The commonality of floors in the buildings can
dramatically reduce modelling and design time.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
To analyze high-rise box system structures considering the
effects of floor slabs, an efficient method was proposed which
reduce computational time and memory in the analysis by
using sub structuring technique and matrix condensation. The
effects of floor slabs on seismic response of high rise
apartment building structures were also investigated [Guen
Lee et al.(2002)]. Two types of irregularities in the building
models i.e. plan irregularity with geometric and diaphragm
discontinuity and vertical irregularity with setback and sloping
ground was analyzed. These irregularities are created as per
clause 7.1 of IS 1893 (part1)2002 code. Effect of three
different lateral load patterns on the performance of various
T
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 7
irregular buildings in pushover analysis was also studied
[Ravikumar C M et.al. (2012)]. The response spectrum, time
history and linking slab in-plan stresses analysis were
executed combined with practical project with inclined
columns by several programs such as ETABS, SAP2000,
MIDAS/gen and SATWE. The results of time history analysis
by SAP2000 and ETABS are roughly similar. SAP2000 did
not have the concept of storey which made the post-
processing much more complicated. For regular structure
ETABS is recommended and for gymnasium or space truss
structures SAP2000 has irreplaceable advantages [Hu Kai et
al.(2012)]. RCC Building of 10 storeys with and without shear
wall was analyzed for seismic behaviour. It was observed that
large dimension of shear wall was not effective in 10 storey or
below 10 storey buildings and the shear wall was economical
and effective in high rise building [Chandurkar et.al.
(2013)]. They presented the results of a simplified model for
the analysis of free-plan buildings based on sub structuring of
the structural elements, the shear wall core (WCA), the
perimeter frame and the floor slabs (finite element model) [
Encina Javier et al. (2013)]. The response parameters like
story drift, story deflection and story shear of structure under
seismic force under the linear static & dynamic analysis of
G+10 vertically irregular buildings was studied using
commercial software CSI-ETABS (version 9.7)[ Abdul
Rahman et al.(2013)]. 14 storey building with varying
location of shear wall for determining parameters like storey
drift, storey shear and storey moment was analyzed using
ETABS V9.7.1 software. All necessary load combinations
were considered in shear walls analysis and frame analysis.
Wind load and seismic load was considered as external lateral
load in the dynamic analysis [Mon (2014)]. 20 storey
buildings with horizontal irregularity were modelled in
program STAAD.pro and analyzed for their stability. Irregular
plan like L - shape, H – shape and U- shape were considered
for study. Buildings are analyzed for Dead loads, Live loads,
wind loads as per IS 875 and earthquake load as per IS 1893:
2002. Parameters like internal forces and roof displacement
were used for the assessment [Gaur et.al. (2014)].
Fundamental periods of eccentrically braced frame (EBF)
structures of no. in 12 with varying geometric irregularities
were designed and analyzed. From statistical comparison it
was concluded that 3-variable power model was better fit to
the Rayleigh data than equations which were dependent on
height only [Young Kelly et al. (2016)].
III. MODELS CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS
Nine types of models have been considered for analysis. It
was attempted to choose models that are representative of
actual building types that are being constructed nowadays.
Type 1 is regular framed structure with and without shear
wall. Type 2, Type-3, Type-4, Type-5 are L-shape Irregular
framed structure with and without shear wall. Type A and
Type-B are T-shape Irregular framed structure with and
without shear wall. Type-C and Type-D are + shape framed
structure with and without shear wall.
Fig.1: Regular framed
structure without shear wall
(Type-1)
Fig.2: Regular Framed structure
with shear wall (Type-1)
Fig.3: L-shape structure without
shear wall (Type-2)
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 8
Fig.4: L-shape structure with
shear wall (Type-2)
Fig.5: L-shape structure without
shear wall (Type-3)
Fig.6: L-shape structure with
shear wall (Type-3)
Fig.7: L-shape structure
without shear wall (Type-4)
Fig.8: L-shape structure with
shear wall (Type-4)
Fig.9: L-shape structure without
shear wall (Type-5)
Fig.10: L-shape structure with
shear wall (Type-5)
Fig.11: T-shape structure without
shear wall (Type-A)
Fig.12: T-shape structure with
shear wall (Type-A)
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 9
Fig.13: T-shape structure
without shear wall (Type-B)
Fig.14: T-shape structure with
shear wall (Type-B)
Fig.15: + -shape structure
without shear wall (Type-C)
Fig.16: + -shape structure with
shear wall (Type-C)
Fig.17: + -shape structure without
shear wall (Type-D)
Fig.18: + -shape structure with
shear wall (Type-D)
IV. DESIGN BASIS
Table- 1 Design Data of RCC Frame Structures
S.No Particulars Dimension/Size/Value
1. Model G+10
2. Seismic Zones IV
3. Floor height 3M
4. Basement 3.5M
5. Building height 33.5m
6. Plan size 20mx18m
8. Size of columns 700mm×300mm (M35)
9. Size of beams
300mm×600mm (M30) throughout
10 Shear Walls 0.23m
11. Thickness of slab 150mm
12. Earthquake load As per IS-1893-2002
13. Type of soil Type -II, Medium soil as per IS-1893
14. Ec
5000√fck N/ mm2(Ec is short term static
modulus of elasticity
in N/ mm2)
15. Fck
0.7√fc k N/ mm2(Fck is
characteristic cube
strength of concrete in N/ mm2
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 10
16. Live load 2 kN/ m2
17. Floor finish 1.00kN/ m2
18. Services 1.00kN/ m2
19 Specific wt. of RCC 25.00 kN/ m2
20. Specific wt. of infill 20.00 kN/ m2
21. Material used
Concrete M-25, M-30 and M35 and
Reinforcement Fe-
500(HYSD Confirming to IS-
1786)
22. Reinforcement used
High strength deformed steel
Confirming to IS-786.
It is having modulus of Elasticity as 200
kN/ mm2
23. Static analysis
Equivalent static
lateral force method.
24. Dynamic analysis
Using Response
spectrum method
25. Software used
ETABS for both static
and dynamic analysis
26. Specified characteristic
compressive strength
of 150mm cube at 28
days for M-30 grade concrete - 30N/ mm2
27. Fundamental natural
period of building
Ta = 0.075 h0.75 for moment resisting RC
frame building without
infill wall. Ta = 0 .09 h /√d for all
other building
moment resisting RC frame building with
brick infill walls
Where h = height of building ,
d = base dimension of
building at plinth level in m along the
Considered direction
of lateral forces.
0.24, As per Is-1893-
2002 Part -1 for different. Zone as per
clause 6.4.2.
28. Zone factor Z
4.1ANALYSIS OF FORCES
4.1.1 Model Parameters
For the analysis of multi storey building nine types of models
have been considered for analysis. Type -1 is regular framed
structure with and without shear wall. Type-2, Type-3, Type-4
and Type-5 L-shape framed structure with and without shear
wall. Type A, Type-B T-shape framed structure with and
without shear wall. Type-C and Type- D is + shape framed
structure with and without shear wall. In the current study
main goal is Dynamic Analysis of different types of building.
4.1.3 Wind Load (WL)
The wind velocity at Delhi is 47m/s. The other parameter of
wind load as per IS: 875 (Part-3) is summarized below:
Table-2 Wind parameters
Sl. Description Value Reference
01 Terrain category. 2 IS-875
02 Class of structure. B IS-875
03 Probability factor, k1. 1.0 IS-875
04 Terrain, height and structure
size factor, k2.
As/Height IS-875
05 Topography factor, k3. 1.0 IS-875
4.1.4 Seismic Load (EQ)
Seismic loads to be applied for structures were in accordance
with the applicable provision of the IS 1893, 2002 and noted
below:
Table-3 Seismic parameters
Sl. Description Value Reference
01 Seismic Factor for Zone : IV 0.24 IS-1893
02 Structure importance 1.0 IS-1893
coefficient, I.
03 Response reduction factor, R 5.00 IS-1893
04 Damping 5% IS-1893
05 Time period Variable IS-1893
4.1.5 Load Combinations
For the design of superstructure the loads combinations shall
be as follows:
Table -4 Load combinations
Sr. No. Load combination
1 1.5 (DL + LL)
2 1.2 (DL + LL ±EQX)
3 1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY)
4 1.5 (DL ± EQX)
5 1.5 (DL ±EQY)
6 1.2 (DL + LL ± WLX)
7 1.2 (DL + LL±WLY)
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The analysis of different models produced a large set of data.
Microsoft excel was used for tabulation, plotting and analysis
of results obtained by ETABS analysis. The first objective
was to figure out the key parameters that affected the building.
Tabulation was done for different key parameters for all the
models.
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 11
5.1.1 Modal period
5.1.2 Storey Displacement in x-direction
→M
od
al
Perio
d(s
ec)
→Mode
for L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→P
erio
d(s
ec)
→ Mode
for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→M
od
al P
erio
d(s
ec)
→Mode
For T & + shape w/o shear wall Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D →M
od
al
perio
d(s
ec)
→Mode
For T & + shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For EQX in x-direction for L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5 → M
ax D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For EQX in x-direction for L-shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
type-5
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 12
→M
ax.D
isp
(mm
)
→Story
For EQX in x-direction for T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For EQX in x-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Spec X in X-direction for L-shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→m
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Spec X in X-direction for L-shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in x-direction for T & + shape w/o
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Spec X in x-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 13
5.1.3 Storey displacement in y-direction
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction for L-shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→m
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction for L-shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction for T & + shape w/o
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→m
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 14
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for T & + shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in y-direction for L-shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in y-direction for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in y-direction for T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D →M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in y-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 15
5.1.4 Storey Drift in x-direction
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For WindY in y-direction for L-shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5 →M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Wind Y in y-direction for L-shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For WindY in y-direction for T & + shape w/o
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→M
ax.D
isp
.(m
m)
→Story
For Wind Y in y-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Storey
For EQX in x-direction for L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5 →S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Storey
For EQX in x-direction for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 16
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For EQX in x-direction for T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D →S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For EQX in x-direction for T & + shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in x-direction L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in x-direction for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in x-direction T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in x-direction for T & + shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 17
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in x-direction L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in x-direction for L-shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in x-direction T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in x-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5 →S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 18
5.1.5 Storey drift in y-direction
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D →S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind X in x-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-
1Type-
AType-
BType-
CType-
D
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for T & + shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D →S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For EQY in y-direction for T & + shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 19
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Spec X in y-direction L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in y-direction for L-shape with shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in x-direction for T & + shape w/o
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecX in y-direction for T & + shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in y-direction L-shape w/o shear wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Spec Y in y-direction for L-shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 20
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The overall conclusion between different types of 10 storey
structure without shear wall for mode Vs. modal period in
chronological order are Type-2,Type,A,Type-1,Type-D,Type-
C,Type-B,Type-5,Type-4 and Type-3.But in case of with
shear wall structure these are Type-1,Type-A,Type-B,Type-
D,Type-5,Type-3,Type-4,Type-5 and Type-C.
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in y-direction for T & + shape w/o
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For SpecY in y-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind Y in y-direction for L-shape w/o shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind Y in y-direction for L-shape with shear
wall
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
→S
tory
drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind Y in y-direction for T & + shape with
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D →S
tory
Drif
t(m
m)
→Story
For Wind Y in y-direction for T & + shape w/o
shear wall
Type-1
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–2705
www.rsisinternational.org Page 21
Storey Displacement in x-direction due to EQX for 10 storey
building without shear wall are in chronological order are
Type-2,Type-B,Type-4,Type-5,Type-C,Type-1,Type-D,Type-
3 and Type-A. And with shear wall the performance of
structure are Type-D, Type-5, Type-B, Type-A, Type-1,
Type-2, Type-C, Type-3 and Type-4.
Story Displacement in y-direction due to EQY
for different types of 10 storey building without shear wall are
Type-D,Type-2,Type-1,Type-3,Type-A,Type-5,Type-C,Type-
4 and Type-B. And with shear wall are Type-A, Type-
B,Type-1,Type-D,Type-5,Type-C,Type-2,Type-3 and Type-4
Story Displacement in x-direction due to SPEC X for different
types of 10 storey building without shear wall are Type-
2,Type-1,Type-C,Type-D,Type-4,Type-5,Type-A,Type-B and
Type-3.and with shear wall are Type-D,Type-5,Type-A,Type-
B,Type-1,Type-3,Type-C,Type-4 and Type-2.
Storey Displacement in y-direction due to SPEC
Y for different types of 10 storey building without shear wall
are Type-D,Type-1,Type-2,Type-3,Type-C,Type-5, Type-
B,Type-4 and Type-A.. And with shear wall are Type-A,
Type-B, Type-D, Type-1, Type-5, Type-C, Type-3, Type-4
and Type-2
Here we can clearly see that in case of 10 storey building
without shear wall Type-1, Type-2, and Type-D are good on
performance wise. And with shear wall Type-D, Type-2,
Type-5, Type-A, Type-B.
REFERENCES
[1]. Rakesh Sakale, R K Arora and Jitendra Chouhan,“SEISMIC
BEHAVIOR OF BUILDINGS HAVING HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES”, Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Research, Vol.
3, No. 4, November 2014.
[2]. IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002: Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 – General Provisions and
Buildings (Fifth Revision)‖, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi. [3]. IS 875 (Part 3) – 1987 ―Indian Standard code of practice for
design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures‖,
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi. [4]. IS: 456 – 2000 ―Standard plan and reinforced concrete- code of
practice‖, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
[5]. Ravikumar C M, Babu Narayan K S, Sujith B V, Venkat Reddy D, “ Effect of Irregular Configurations on Seismic Vulnerability of
RC Buildings”, Architecture Research, vol. 2, Issue 3, 2012, pp. 20-26.
[6]. Himanshu Gaur, R.K Goliya, Krishna Murari, Dr. A. K Mullick, “
A parametric study of multy- storey r/c buildings with horizontal irregularity”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 03, Issue 04, 2014, pp.360-364.
[7]. Le Yee Mon ,“Comparative Study on Dynamic Analysis of Irregular Building with Shear Walls”, International Journal of
Science and Engineering Applications, Vol. 3 Issue 2, 2014
[8]. Shaikh Abdul Aijaj Abdul Rahman, “Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular RC Frame with Stiffness Irregularity at
Ground Floor”, International Journal of Civil Engineering
Research, Vol. 5, Number 4, 2014, pp. 339-344. [9]. Dong-Guen Lee , Hyun-Su Kim , Min Hah Chun ,“Efficient
seismic analysis of high-rise building structures with the effects of
floor slabs”, Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 613–623. [10]. Javier Encina, Juan C. de la Llera, “A simplified model for the
analysis of free plan buildings using a wide-column model”,
Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 738–748. [11]. Kai Hu, Yimeng Yang, Suifeng Mu, Ge Qu,“Study on High-rise
Structure with Oblique Columns by ETABS, SAP2000,
MIDAS/GEN and SATWE”, International Conference on Advances in Computational Modeling and Simulation, Procedia
Engineering 31 (2012) 474 – 480.
[12]. Kelly Young, Hojjat Adeli ,“Fundamental period of irregular eccentrically braced tall steel frame structures”, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 120 (2016) 199–205.
[13]. P. P. Chandurkar, Dr. P. S. Pajgade,“Seismic Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall”, IJMER Vol. 3, Issue. 3,
May - June 2013 pp-1805-1810.